Some Interesting, Maybe Even Promising(?), Artwork From The new DOROTHY OF OZ Movie!!

Merrick here...
THR has some images from DOROTHY OF OZ, a CGI animated musical arriving in 2012.
Dan St. Pierre (who previously served various animation capacities on projects ranging from TV's SHE-RA and BRAVESTARR to movies like ALADDIN and THE LION KING) will direct this adaptation of Roger Baum's literary source material (available HERE).
GLEE's Lea Michele is voicing Dorothy, Dan Aykroyd is Scarecrow, Kelsey Grammer is The Tin Man, James Belushi is The Cowardly Lion. Patrick Stewart, Hugh Dancy, Oliver Platt, and Martin Short are among the picture's other vocal performances.
Click the images below to see more environmental and character art from the picture. This material appears on the film's official website as well as THR, so I'm not sure how crediting works out in this instance. But here you go, all the same...

A while back, we got yelled at for running developmental art from John Boorman's CGI OZ movie - a project completely unrelated to this one. We haven't heard much of the status of that movie recently. If anyone knows anything, drop me a line!
---Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---

You can tell this was done by someone who hasn't even read the source material. The citizens of the Emerald City all had to wear green glasses, supposedly to protect their eyes. But it was because the city wasn't actually Emerald at all.

Disney may keep changing the law to keep mickey mouse under copyright, but Oz is older than mickey. It fell into the public domain long ago, and so Hollywood (cheap as fuck as they are) doesn't have to pay anyone to use the source material.

The castle exterior really is too obvious a design except for the fact that the previous t'backers are right: it does look like penises. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but what are they thinking?
The second pic, however, the interior and the Wizard, is spot on. There's a strong sense of mood and character to that image. Very cool. But for the exterior, it would be nice if they found a way to honor the old designs while giving us something new and something that doesn't look like a bunch of erect dicks.

You can't lose with Kelsey Grammar & Patrick Stewart but... Aykroyd? The lesser Belushi? Some flash-in-a-pan for Dorothy? And... sorry, Martin Short, but for some reason you never end up in a good project. I am afraid. Very afraid.

It had ten times the intellectual content of even the best sci-fi made today, and it certainly has an epic sweep.Perhaps all the wild 70's sex can be done in 3d; especially since Zed feels guilt afterwards, making it politically correct.

I love the OZ series and Journeys and Wonderful Wizard are still my favorites.
If they followed these books it would be a wonderful freaking head trip, dark and yet fun for all.
but THAT will never happen.

That's a great book and a great Broadway production. And I don't understand this concept art. Why make the city look exactly like the 1939 production but make the characters look so different. Looks like they have no particular direction for the movie.

Because there were dozens of books set in "Oz", and "The Wizard Of Oz" is only one of them. Its a rich tapestry of stories and characters. They are not remaking the Judy Garland movie. There's room for interpretation here.

While Darth Busey went a bit of the top in his reaction, they guy has a point. We've 50 posts screaming for hell fire and damnation because "how dare they remake The Wizard of Oz" when the reality is, this is a sequel written many years later by Baum's great grandson. It's a unique story we've never seen before, set in a widely beloved universe. That's alright by me.

Looks like the Scarecrow has been usurped by some Wizard-wannabe called the Jester (Short). He, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion are MIA, so Dorothy returns to help find 'em, with the help of Marshal Mallow (from Candy County), a China Princess (from China Country) and a tug boat with Dissociative Identity Disorder.<p>
Actually seems to have the Oz spirit right (I read all Baum's books), unlike Gregory Maguire's drearily realistic WICKED book series (luckily, the musical fixed that). Naturally enough, though, I wonder why they didn't just adapt LAND OF OZ, which is presumably copyright exempt at this point...I'd love to see hordes of buxom farmgirls overrunning Emerald City, myself...

I'll slam most straight up remakes of "classic" films as much as anybody else here. But as the website states, this is NOT a remake, but a continuation of the Wizard of Oz story. If you want to shit on the sequel idea, that's cool, but IMO its 70 years later and I'm not opposed to somebody else playing in that universe.

I don't think that another Oz movie can be very successful. The 1939 movie has left such an indelible imprint on so many millions (billions, possibly?) that any deviation would not be totally welcomed by the masses. Judy Garland was Dorothy. Anyone else would seem an imposter, even in CGI.

Anyone play that DS game? Only it was released under WB's interactive label with the "Wizard of OZ" title. It's quite different, where all four witches are based on the four seasons (The one from the West is actually this hot, tropical Goddess) and Dorothy is a teenage girl. And also plenty of kitty cats. Now, if the film had that as well...

Don't know why a studio doesn't treat Oz more like a Harry Potter property and just do straight-up adaptations, using John R. Neill's illustrations as definitive character designs a la "Return to Oz." Instead it's just lame reimagining after lame reimagining with shitty effects and ridiculous scripts, and lame cartoon after lame cartoon that recycles stuff from the MGM musical.